Article in:
Translation and Interpreting Studies: Online-First Articles

Exploring deaf sign language interpreting students’ experiences from joint sign language interpreting programs for deaf and hearing students in Finland

| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences
| Western Norway University of Applied Sciences | Stockholm University
Integrated university programs for deaf and hearing sign language interpreting students are rare. In Finland, deaf interpreting students have been integrated in the only university program for sign language interpreting since its beginning in the early 2000s. This article investigates the experiences of the deaf interpreting students and deaf sign language interpreters (n = 5) who attend and have attended the program. We analyzed interview responses using critical discourse analysis and the concept of identity construction, and found that deaf interpreting students, despite some disadvantages, benefited from the integrated program. We also found three identity positions – competent deaf identity, student identity, and professional DI identity – and support for recognition (Honneth 1996) in both the solidarity and legal sphere developed through the program.
Keywords: critical discourse analysis, deaf interpreters, higher education, interpreting training, sign language interpreting, theory of recognition
Published online: 19 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.18033.ska
References

References

Adam, Robert, et al.
2014 “Deaf interpreters: An introduction.” In Deaf Interpreters at Work: International Insights, ed. by Robert Adam, et al., 1–18. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Adam, Robert, Breda Carty, and Christopher Stone
2011 “Ghostwriting: Deaf translators within the Deaf community.” Babel 57 (4): 357–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Böser, Ursula
2015 “Interviews and focus groups.” In Researching Translation and Interpreting, ed. by Claudia V. Angelelli and Brian J. Baer, 236–246. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boudreault, Patrick
2005 “Deaf interpreters.” In Topics in Signed Language Interpreting, ed. by Terry Janzen, 323–356. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burr, Vivien
2003 Social Constructionism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dahlberg, Karin and Maria Nyström
2001 “Pre-understanding and openness: A relationship without hope?” Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences 15 (4): 339–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
De Wit, Maya
2016 A Comprehensive Guide to Sign Language Interpreting in Europe. Amsterdam: de Wit.Google Scholar
European Forum for Sign Language Interpreting
2011 The Rights to Sign Language Interpreting Services When Working or Studying Abroad. EFSLI Report 1101.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Finnish Association of the Deaf
2015 Viittomakielen tulkkaus [Sign language interpreting]. www​.kuurojenliitto​.fi​/fi​/viittomakielet​-ja​-viittomakieliset​/tulkkaus. Last accessed 21 January 2020.
Forestal, Eileen
2005 “The emerging professionals: Deaf interpreters and their views and experience on training.” In Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice, ed. by Marc Marschark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston, 235–258. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011 Deaf Interpreters: Exploring their Processes of Interpreting. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Minneapolis, MN, Capella University.Google Scholar
Friedner, Michele
2018 “Negotiating legitimacy in American Sign Language interpreting education: Uneasy belonging in a community of practice.” Disability Studies Quarterly 38(1). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra
1997 “The interpreter on trial: Pragmatics in court interpreting.” In The Critical Link: Interpreters in the Community, ed. by Silvana. E. Carr, et al., 201–211. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Stuart
1996 “Introduction: Who needs ‘identity’?” In Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. by Stuart Hall and Paul du Gay, 1–17. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holcomb, Thomas K.
1997 “Development of Deaf bicultural identity.” American Annals of the Deaf 142(2): 89–93. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Honneth, Axel
1996 The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, Marianne W. and Louise Phillips
2002 Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kusters, Annelies, Maartje De Meulder, and Dai O’Brien
2017 “Innovations in Deaf Studies: Critically mapping the field.” In Innovations in Deaf Studies: The Role of Deaf Scholars, ed. by Annelies Kusters, Maartje De Meulder, and Dai O’Brien, 1–56. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laclau, Ernesto, and Mouffe Chantal
1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Lai, Miranda
2018 “Training deaf learners to become interpreters: A pilot project.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 10 (1): 30–45.Google Scholar
Leigh, Irene W.
2009 A Lens on Deaf Identities. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lindsay, Mette Sommer
2016 Deaf Interpreters in Europe: A Comprehensive European Survey of the Situation of Deaf Interpreters Today. Copenhagen: EU.Google Scholar
Marschark, Mark, Rico Peterson, and Elizabeth A. Winston
eds. 2005 Sign Language Interpreting and Interpreter Education: Directions for Research and Practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McDermid, Campbell
2010 “Culture brokers, advocates, or conduits: Pedagogical considerations for deaf interpreter education.” International Journal of Interpreter Education 2: 76–101.Google Scholar
Mellinger, Christopher
2020 “Positionality in public service interpreting research.” FITISPos International Journal: Public Service Interpreting and Translation 7 (1): 92–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Norwegian National Research Ethics Committees
2016 The Norwegian Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences, Humanities, Law and Theology. 4th ed.Google Scholar
Olsen, Elisabet, Ingeborg Skaten, and Gro Hege Saltnes Urdal
2018 “Grenseløs tolkning: Tolking mellom fremmedspråklige døve og norske talespråklige” [Borderless interpreting: Interpreting between foreign-language deaf and Norwegian hearing]. In Tolking: Språkarbeid og profesjonsutøvelse [Interpreting: Language work and professional practice], ed. by Anna-Lena Nilsson, Eli Raanes, and Hilde Haualand, 222–241. Oslo: Gyldendal.Google Scholar
Patton, Michael Quinn
2015 Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Rogers, Jeremy
2016 “Deaf interpreter education: Stories and insights shared by working deaf interpreters and deaf interpreting students.” Unpublished MA thesis, University of Western Oregon.Google Scholar
Russell, Debra
2017 “Deaf/Non-deaf interpreter teams: The complexity of professional practice.” In Interpreting and the Politics of Recognition, ed. by Christopher Stone and Lorraine Leeson, 138–159. Routledge: New York.Google Scholar
Sawyer, David
2004 Fundamental Aspects of Interpreter Education: Curriculum and Assessment. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tester, Christopher
2018 “How American Sign Language-English interpreters who can hear determine need for a deaf interpreter for court proceedings.” Journal of Interpretation 26(1): article 3.Google Scholar